OC. . WINNIE WITH WEI " WITH mm I' jall. Wow, what a totally unpopular opinion. You're totally using this meme correctly. OC WINNIE WITH WEI " mm I' jall Wow what a totally unpopular opinion You're using this meme correctly
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (109)
[ 109 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #3 - leonhardt
Reply +56 123456789123345869
(04/05/2014) [-]
Wow, what a totally unpopular opinion. You're totally using this meme correctly.
User avatar #36 to #3 - cresel
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
if it was such a popular opinion it would not be illegal in many places
User avatar #37 to #36 - leonhardt
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
"Adults should be free to live their lives how they want"

Yeah, totally pissing off a lot of people, there.
User avatar #50 to #37 - hickerydickery
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Personal life.
User avatar #85 to #3 - skubasteve
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
If everyone is using this meme incorrectly then it probably isn't what the meme is supposed to be.
User avatar #95 to #3 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
unpopular opinion in the real world... not on this site I guess
#16 to #3 - chords
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/05/2014) [-]
all the actually unpopular opinions get down thumbed to oblivion
User avatar #35 to #16 - envinite
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Well that's the point.
#53 - ainise
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
I will always be monogamous, I have no issue with that. However, I'm perfectly fine with her having an open relationship as long as she's upfront, honest and they always use a condom.

Sex is just sex. As long as she comes home to me, I don't really care what she does with her friends.
User avatar #57 to #53 - dehumanizer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
cockload
#71 to #53 - anon id: 1c8a7d70
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
future cuckold husband
#74 to #53 - trixcision
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
wow dude.. that's.. ummm..    
   
not okay
wow dude.. that's.. ummm..

not okay
#90 to #53 - toncheky
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
That's sad.
User avatar #55 to #53 - robbiemcbiscuit
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
sorry mate that's pretty ******* Beta.
User avatar #22 - anenemy
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/05/2014) [-]
"But officer," someone tries to explain, "They wanted me to kill them. It was consensual."
#23 to #22 - anon id: be359135
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
You can't give consent, or support that consent was given, when dead.

Fail analogy is fail.
User avatar #24 to #23 - anenemy
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Then what on earth is a will, you stupid anon?
#25 to #24 - anon id: be359135
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
A will nominates someone else to manage your estate after you die. It's not a legal form of 'consent' you ******* moron.
#34 to #25 - anenemy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
And people wonder why anons aren't respected.
And people wonder why anons aren't respected.
#26 to #25 - anon id: be359135
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
posthumous consent*
#27 to #22 - dstone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Actually it's legal in the state of California in the proper conditions, Google "Assisted suicide" you'll learn something!  gif unrelated
Actually it's legal in the state of California in the proper conditions, Google "Assisted suicide" you'll learn something! gif unrelated
User avatar #39 to #22 - meganinja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
By that logic nothing should ever be legalized if it's ever been illegal.
User avatar #100 to #39 - anenemy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
That's quite the bridge of logic you've built.
User avatar #101 to #100 - meganinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
I didn't even stretch anything, that's what you've implied. When somebody asks to legalize something, the counter to it should never be "it's illegal, therefore you cannot make it legal." It doesn't make sense.
#102 to #101 - anenemy
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #69 to #22 - choobe
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
When you kill someone, they die Mind. Blown. Right? . People don't die when they're in a relationship with more than one person. They could always break it off anytime if they wanted. If you are against it I suggest you defend it instead of going straight to an unrelated hyperbole.
User avatar #99 to #69 - anenemy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
It's not an unrelated hyperbole. It's a situation in which consensual adults are performing an activity. Sorry you don't understand it, I'll dumb it down for you next time.
User avatar #103 to #99 - choobe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Well, it is totally unrelated to the question. Should consenting adults be allowed to drink beer? Okay, then they should be able to ******* kill each other.

It is at best, a straw man.
Me: I think schools need more money.
You: How can you say that we should cut all money we spend on the military?! Shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves?!



Nice, ad hominem too (attack me, instead of my argument), I understand what you mean, I just think that what you mean, is wrong.
User avatar #104 to #103 - anenemy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Do you have any more copypasta to throw on me?
User avatar #105 to #104 - choobe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The only thing copied was the example (para-phrased as I remember reading it one time), but just because it's copied, doesn't make it wrong.

And you're, again, completely ignoring what I say, instead focusing on irrelevant things. You know, you may be the first legitimate troll I've discussed with on FJ.
User avatar #106 to #105 - anenemy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
That's because I've already stated my point, which has gone so far over your head that you refuse to believe it exists. So here, let me restate it.

"What consensual adults do with their personal lives shouldn't be anyone else's business" is what the picture says.

So, by that logic, assisted suicide? Fine.
Burning your own house down? Great.
Shooting up some heroin/snorting crack/any other drug? Go for it.
Digging a moat around your lawn and filling it with irradiated water? Have at it.

The point is, there are very few things on this earth that you can do that doesn't effect other people. It is automatically other people's business and to ignore that (or worse, yell "why don't people mind their own business?!) is ridiculous and short sighted.

Is that better? Does this meet your high standard of post quality?
User avatar #108 to #106 - choobe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Well, that's a slippery slope. I am for that people should be able to do what they want, as long as it's not damaging to others. Irradiated water in your lawn, no, because people who walk past can get hit. Burning house down? No, because something else could catch fire and then it's not only you anymore. The others are fine (imo).

The point was, the picture is talking about polygamy, not assisted suicide, sure, it can be interpreteded in some pretty horrific ways, but I don't think we should go to the extremes. It's an underlying understanding that it doesn't include things that hurts other people (at least everytime I've heard someone say it).

User avatar #109 to #108 - anenemy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
You're operating under a really HUGE assumption of what is and isn't damaging to others. So people who get addicted to crack are fine, because they're only doing it to themselves? What about the people who care about them? They're not at all damaged by that person making that decision?

By your logic, who cares? It's that person's life, they should be free to do whatever they want. Screw what everyone else thinks, right?
User avatar #110 to #109 - choobe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2014) [-]
Oh, **** it, I shouldn't have mentioned it, I mean that drugs should be a medical problem, not a police problem. Legalization, but I don't wanna discuss that now, but no, not a completely free marked with drugs on every WalMart.

And yeah, if you're only "damaging" yourself directly (drugs, polygamy), screw what everyone else thinks.
User avatar #45 to #22 - douthit
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
This is assisted suicide, and not in conflict with my worldview.
User avatar #32 - peanutmonkey
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
I think that polygamy is unnecessary, dysfunctional, and gets in the way of the devotion to another person you're supposed to have in a marriage. If someone wants to marry more than one person because they legitimately think they will have multiple working spousal relationships for all parties then fine. It's not my life and don't give half a **** what you do with it. I would just respectively tell them that I think it's not going to work because there will be a favorite and an undeniable sense of awkwardness and jealousy.
User avatar #83 to #32 - daentraya
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
lesswrong.com/lw/79x/polyhacking/

You seem to not know much about this subject. Having an opinion on something you dont at all know anything about is sorta silly. I think the above article might give you some insight in it, and I look forward to hearing your revised opinion on it. That is, if you're the type of person who actively seeks out information to revise current believes that are based on little information, which i genuinely hope you are
#91 - luquaz
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
User avatar #75 - ariplayer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
true. but you gotta realize that most of the women in polygamous relationships got in one when they were like 15/16 and their dad married them to some 50 year old dude because of Mormonism and ****.

if people give consent while being adults and not being forced and ****, sure, go ahead and ruin your life, lol, like i give a ****.
#76 to #75 - anon id: e75b52c2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
1. polygamy in the morman church is frowned upon and people who comment it are excommunicated from the morman church
2. are you from the 1800's? really? they doesnt happen unless in 3 world country or warlords.
3. sorry for sounding like a dick but come on man at least get your **** right, do the research before you judge something on a religion
User avatar #44 - zenith
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
How did you put out 20 posts in the timespan where I can't thumb you up anymore.

And you call this oc?
User avatar #20 - traveltech
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/05/2014) [-]
There's really nothing wrong with polygamy

The main reason our society generally sees it as wrong is because it's usually used by misogynists who treat women as property.

Oh, and also because JESUS
User avatar #29 to #20 - dedaluminus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
As a misogynist who treats women as property, I find this offensive
User avatar #52 to #29 - asasqw
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Who says it needs to be one guy
User avatar #30 to #29 - traveltech
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
I'm sorry

I should have been more sensitive
User avatar #31 to #30 - dedaluminus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Well, at least you learned from this experience. No harm done. Talk to you later, though; I have to go do...some...property maintenance.
#59 to #20 - dehumanizer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
User avatar #17 - ezombio
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/05/2014) [-]
I think I'd go the other way.
For me, marriage is about dedicating yourself to another person.
I just don't think there's ever room for three people to be that intimate.
#21 to #17 - bigmanblue
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/05/2014) [-]
so you are basicaly saying because you dont see yourself loving 2 people no one else possible can
just because you think that you couldnt have 3 people in a loving family doesnt mean it isnt possible
User avatar #33 to #17 - thebaseballexpert
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
then **** having kids. you can't possibly love 1 or 2 kids AND your SO
User avatar #46 to #17 - douthit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
But it's not up to you or me, just the people involved.
#7 - anon id: 2a4c9344
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/05/2014) [-]
As long as everyone that's affected is fine with it and you have the money and resources to support each other than I don't see why not.



It still bothers me a bit though because of my beliefs It's nothing religious. Just personal beliefs. , but I'm not going to hold it against someone.



#58 to #7 - anon id: 598c5df1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
It's just a system that's easily taken advantage of, imo.

Plus, how will divorce work? Will everyone be married to each other? One man, multiple wives, or vice versa? Multiple wives and husbands?

Each brings their own complex set of problems, and don't get me started on the children.
#87 to #7 - theonlytinman
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
I'll be damned. A decent-ass human being. Thumb for you, for being tactful about sharing your beliefs without tearing others down.
I'll be damned. A decent-ass human being. Thumb for you, for being tactful about sharing your beliefs without tearing others down.